Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.
New users, please see Help or go to the Pub to ask questions.

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 09:54, 4 November 2009 by Tatata7 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

See also:

Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the talk page.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.
  4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel... many images are located on Wikitravel Shared, in which case they should be nominated for deletion over there instead.

Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why. If you are in favor of redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to the shared repository with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.

Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.



July 2009

Chinatown

This seems like a useless disambiguation. Does Wikitravel really aim to list EVERY Chinatown in the world? ChubbyWimbus 19:22, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

No, but we should certainly list the ones for which we have articles. =) LtPowers 20:08, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's an odd disambiguation, but better to have the links than not, both for the odd search and possibly for our own SEO. And actually, this one is a borderline travel topic. --Peter Talk 20:53, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. The question here is whether this is a true disambiguation, or whether it is just the start of a list of attractions of a particular type. If it is just a list, which I think it inevitably will be, is it one of true interest to travellers, or is it just a Wikipedia style obsessive list making type of list? --inas 21:37, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
  • I think Inas is right, and Wikipedia already has a list. See here [1]. Our "Chinatown" page is definitely moving to mirror the Wikipedia page as articles grow and are added (I added some myself to see what it would look like prior to the Wikipedia search). As far as helping the traveller goes, maybe we should give the travellers a little credit. Someone searching for a Chinatown would likely put the city in the search with it. If they don't, and they are just searching in the cosmos for any old Chinatown then I would question the seriousness of their travel plans. If it were made into a travel topic, then what sort of information would we add to make it useful? The name "Chinatown" is probably as good of a description as any. ChubbyWimbus 01:01, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
The wp list contains loads of travel-irrelevant junk. (I've heard rumors that a Baltimore Chinatown did at one time exist, but I'm skeptical of even that.) The current page is more useful (and interesting), since it only links to Chinatowns that we actually cover.
Our policy on disambiguation pages gives When destinations share identical names as one of the three cases when such pages can be used. This is clearly such a case—Chinatown is place in NYC as well as a place in Chicago, D.C., etc. I don't see any reason to delete it—a coherent collection of blue links like that may actually raise our search engine profile with people doing vague google searches for "chinatown". --Peter Talk 05:08, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
As long as we keep it to articles that we actually have, rather than any city that could be said to have a Chinatown, I think this disambiguation page is necessary and useful, just like Downtown. LtPowers 10:06, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
I can't believe Wikitravel has a Downtown disambiguation. A little embarrassing... Even the small town I am from has a "downtown" area. That's about as useful as creating a disambiguation page for McDonalds and listing every city with a McDonalds. So the real rationale for having these pages is to get Wikitravel on Google? I don't really consider them to be "destinations with the same name" as NYC and Chicago do not have the same name, and certainly "Downtown" is not a "destination". I agree that the pages aren't hurting anything, but they don't seem useful either. ChubbyWimbus 17:50, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
I agree. The downtown article is definitely useless, and verging on plain silly.
The suggestion of limiting entries on a disamb page to geographies for which we have an article isn't current policy or practice for disamb pages. If we are going to make a list of Chinatown's, then we should at least aim to be fairly comprehensive. --inas 20:21, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I think districts are a special case. Yeah, we list redlinks for every community with a particular name on most disambiguation pages, but Chinatown and Downtown are clearly going to be districts; I see no reason we can't restrict those to just the ones for which we have articles. LtPowers 21:01, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Should we then add all of the districts titled with "East", "North", "South", and "West" to those disambiguation pages? Should "Uptown" get it's own disambiguation? What about "San"? These sorts of disambiguations just seem ridiculous. Travellers shouldn't need babied to such an extent that we create disambiguation pages for non-destinations. Just because someone types "ass" into the search, doesn't mean we need to create a disambiguation page to help them find Assisi.
Also, how do we distinguish which we "have articles" for? For example (going back to the Chinatown article): the Philippines entry I added is not Manila/Chinatown however, the page says it's the Chinatown of Manila. The Japan entries are just links to the city pages, because these cities are not large enough for districts, but they have Chinatowns (and they're quite famous). Is this supposed to be a disambiguation page just to list Wikitravel's travel breakdown (aka: city/Chinatown) or is it a list of actual Chinatowns? I feel like you are suggesting just adding the designated Wikitravel category breakdowns, but that seems rather arbitrary, because we would then need to delete all the Japan entries and the Philippines entry. ChubbyWimbus 21:45, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I'd be interested in your reasoning here. For example Sydney has a Sydney/Chinatown article. This looks like it is going to change to Sydney/City South. However, Sydney still has and will have always have a Chinatown district [2], regardless of how we choose to district the city on WT. If this article is a disamb, we aim to direct people searching for Chinatown to the appropriate district on WT. Assuming we want a list, why would we want the list to be less than comprehensive? --inas 21:23, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I didn't read LtPowers as saying that only articles called 'Chinatown' would be included on Chinatown. We have coverage for Sydney's Chinatown, whether it's on Sydney/Chinatown or Sydney/City South, so it would belong on the page. In any event, I think again it's more useful to think of this page as partly a travel topic as well. Chinatowns tell an interesting story about the Chinese immigrant experience, one that can be quite interesting to a cultural anthropologist. The more Chinatowns I've seen, the more interesting I find the next one. Gorilla Jones 21:58, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I know this is under Chinatown, but concerning Downtown, it would have to work the same way, but that list would be insanely long! Otherwise, as stated for the Chinatown, it simply becomes an archive of Wikitravel category breakdowns rather than a complete list of cities with "downtowns". I don't see how either of them could be used. Although I don't necessarily feel that Chinatown is a "destination", someone is much more likely to use that page than the "Downtown" page.
I certainly don't want to put words into LtPowers keyboard, but As long as we keep it to articles that we actually have, rather than any city that could be said to have a Chinatown, sounds like it would exclude Sydney's Chinatown if there wasn't actually an article for it.
I agree that it could make an interesting cultural travel topic. This assumes that someone is going to come along at take it on. As I (and others) have said before, travel topics work well when someone takes on the initial work of getting them over the usable hurdle, otherwise they will more than likely languish and do the site a disservice.
And yes, obviously none of this reasoning applies to downtown. --inas 22:30, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Agreed about Downtown. I'd vote 'delete' on that. Gorilla Jones 23:03, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Since this could be converted into a travel topic, I suppose I will revoke my objections against Chinatown. ChubbyWimbus 00:04, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Completely valid disambiguation page or even a travel topic, if curated attentively. Gorilla Jones 18:09, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Since it hasn't been receiving attentive curation, it's less useful than simply searching for "Chinatown". If an enterprising user comes along and decides to make it a true travel topic, they can recreate the page. - Dguillaime 14:22, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. The given reason for nomination, in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. --GnarlyLikeWhoa 19:21, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
Is that a substantive objection? I can see a line reasoning why we would want to build lists of Chinatowns around the world, and I can see a line of reasoning why we would benefit from a travel topic on Chinatowns and how they evolved, and where they are, and I can see a line of reasoning why having an index article to articles we have is a good idea. We don't quite know which one of these the article is trying to be, but there is some logic behind each of them. There is also a line of reasoning against each one. Building lists is best left for Wikipedia obsessives, we don't need it here. Having a travel topic as a long term stub detracts value from the site. There are a limited amount of resources, and an infinite number of travel topics are possible - we can't keep them all. If someone can't push them into usable articles then they should be deleted until someone is willing to step up. Having index articles as disambiguation article is a good idea, but when the name is so generic, it has little value to guide the traveller.
Which of these lines of reasoning do you consider to be "ridiculous", in your opinion? --inas 20:12, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
Inas, your comment doesn't make any sense. I considered ridiculous the reason given for the nomination. I agree there are many many different reasons for keeping it, including all the reasons you gave.
Do you understand how it may be baffling for me to ingest that last question? I didn't consider any of those reasons you gave to be ridiculous, only the thinking that we can't gather all the Chinatowns in the world. As I've stated on this site recently, this should be the most informative and inclusive site on the internet. To have all the information, or not have all the information, that is the question.
Simply deleting an article because it doesn't have all the Chinatowns in the world is not good reasoning.
In addition, I wasn't aware I even had to give a reason for my vote. If I do, sorry! Maybe I should have consulted you before I cast my vote for Obama.--GnarlyLikeWhoa 12:27, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
It does state above that commments should come with reasons under the "Commenting" header. My argument was not that it should be deleted because they are not all listed; I was questioning whether or not the list itself was useful. Also, once it was mentioned as a travel topic, I had asked what people suggested could be added to make it an informative travel topic. Both have been addressed to varying degrees. The comments may be difficult to follow, because upon mention of "Downtown" as an article, many of my comments (and others) were directed at that. Anyways, as a travel topic it has potential to be interesting, but I do question whether someone will actually make it a travel topic or if it will just remain a list. ChubbyWimbus 15:47, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
Gnarly - the votes for deletion page, is misleading, because it isn't actually just a vote, we are trying to reach a consensus one way or another. The only way that will work is if you try to convince others of your arguments, and you are willing, in turn, to be convinced by them. Sometimes, when the overwhelming sentiment goes one way, or you are convinced by someone else's arguments, there is not much use for reasons - they are apparent. But this one is a bit controversial, so substantive arguments and an effort to understand the other points of view get us closer to a consensus.
And your question To have all the information, or not have all the information, is right on the money IMO. I'm certainly in favor of not having all the information. Exhaustive lists is not what I think WT is about. -inas 19:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

To revisit this (in the hopes of perhaps reaching a resolution), what is our goal for the Chinatown page? Is this going to list worldwide Chinatowns (which there is a push against) or is this going to be a travel topic? If it is a travel topic, how do you propose preventing it from becoming a large list? ChubbyWimbus 02:21, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

We're pretty far from any consensus on this one, and it is part of a larger unresolved policy issue of when to disambiguate district articles that should not be resolved on the vfd page (it should be resolved at Wikitravel talk:Disambiguation pages). (If the article were curated as a travel topic, then it would clearly be a valid article, but it is not.)
So until we have that discussion, perhaps it would be better to keep for the time being, and copy this discussion to Talk:Chinatown? --Peter Talk 16:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Wikitravel:Cultural Expedition

I am bringing this up because of postings on the talk page that were rather unenthusiastic (and posted years ago). Even if it is kept, perhaps calling attention to it here will at least get some other opinions about whether this is a dead idea (which then should be deleted) or whether it is a good idea that just needs more attention. ChubbyWimbus 21:27, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Even if we do declare it dead, I would recommend simply "deactivating" it rather than deleting the content. We can list it on Wikitravel:Expeditions as defunct or inactive. LtPowers 10:16, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
Delete. I'm not yet a card-carrying member of the everything on the wiki muct be kept for posterity club. This expedition has had no significant updates since it was created, no activity on the actual expedition. It never took off, was probably never a good idea, has no useful content, and we should blow it away, and move on. --inas 00:07, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree with Inas, and besides the current format obviously is not working, if resurrected, it would need to be reformulated anyhow - besides the only expedition that really sees any sort of activity is the map making one. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:26, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
    • My thought on it is that if we keep it around as inactive, it will better facilitate learning from previous mistakes. If someone goes looking to start a cultural expedition in the future, they can see there once was one and that it had problems, then take steps to avoid them. LtPowers 16:43, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Keep the article. Merely because the expedition failed to take off does not mean that it meets the criteria for deletion. The page documents an idea that someone had for Wikitravel. To delete it means we forget our history and are at risk of repeating it. It may be appropriate to reformulate the expedition at some time in the future, or it might give someone ideas to plunge forward and make it work. - Huttite 05:54, 3 November 2009 (EST)

September 2009

Andes

  • Delete, it is not used as a sub-region of South America, so why would we have an article for this region? Globe-trotter 11:28, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Note: article was missing VFD tag; I've added it. LtPowers 15:35, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Wikitravel doesn't cover entire mountain ranges. Information about specific mountains should be placed on city pages or given their own page, if there is enough to see/do on a specific mountain within the Andes. ChubbyWimbus 16:12, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, change format to disamb. The text that currently exists in the article seems reasonable to me. It directs the traveller to the regions they will get information. Lets remove the current template, and put the info there currently into a disamb format. --inas 22:42, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. I can't say I care much whether the result is a disambig or an actual region article, but I don't see any reason to get rid of a valid, coherent region article, regardless of whether it is part of the hierarchy. --Peter Talk 00:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep Wikitravel actually does have coverage for the Alps and Himalayas, so unless there is consensus to get rid of those, as well, the Andes are legitimate. ChubbyWimbus 00:38, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Would you care to comment on whether you think the full region template or a disamb is more appropriate? After all, the Alps contains the far too useful advice to eat fondue, so we have much to look forward to in the Eat section of the Andes. --inas 01:57, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I feel there may not be much to say about the entire mountain ranges that would make them useful articles beyond Wikipedia-type facts. I think a disambiguation page with links to more specific articles (either mountains within the range or cities in the mountains or cities where tourists can access parts of the mountain) is likely to be more helpful. Itineraries that include the mountains are also good to link from the disambiguation page. Stating where/what to eat, where to sleep, etc. are just not practical, because there are too many places from Peru to Chile. It seems impractical, as a guide. ChubbyWimbus 02:26, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I'd say the Andes have a distinct cultural heritage from the Incan and surrounding civilizations of yore, as well as from the realities of high altitude living, which could lend to a good region article. There's certainly more of interest to write about than for South Central Nebraska. Our region articles are almost universally terrible, but that's a different issue to work out, I think. --Peter Talk 02:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
True enough, but when you see the opportunity to have one less, why not take it!? --inas 05:42, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Do you think this type of article warrants a sort of half-disambiguation, half-article page? I mean, I agree with Peter that there are things you can say about the culture and history of the area, but I still think that when it comes to sleeping, eating, see, do, etc. it is more helpful to have links to places within the range. If it doesn't have such links, then it's sort of a hollow, dead-end article. ChubbyWimbus 14:12, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Change to disambig - And hey Pashley, you just voted to keep on the basis of Rocky Mountains which is only a disambiguation page. What gives? Texugo 00:46, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I'd say we should have something for any reasonable search term, or any term it might be convenient for a writer to link to — Andes, Taj Mahal, Bombay, Appalachia, ... — but we don't want redundant articles, so disambigs are fine for most of them. Writing about Quito, it seems reasonable to me to say it is high in the Andes, so I want something at "Andes". Pashley 23:33, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
In nearly all cases, I completely fail to see that overlap of region articles is a problem. Yes, we need a hierarchical scheme for the breadcrumbs, but that scheme is not sacred. To me, Rocky Mountains or Baltic Sea are obviously valid titles, although neither makes a coherent region for the hierarchical scheme. Listing Turkey in both the Europe and Middle East articles seems to me the obvious thing to do. And so on. I do not consider "it does not fit our hierarchy" a valid reason for deletion. Pashley 23:45, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - Geographical features such as major mountain ranges provide an alternative way of viewing travel. If I wanted to visit the Andes it would be useful to know which countries, and which parts of those countries, contain the Andes. - Huttite 06:00, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Lake Bolsena

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

  • Redirect after merging any relevant info with Bolsena or Montefiascone. Texugo 23:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Retain as is. Wikitravel:Bodies of water states that Lake Tahoe region is an acceptable article. Apart from size and importance I don't see any difference in approach here.Shep 02:08, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
Lake Tahoe's article is allowed not because it is an article about a lake but because it is set up as a valid region article, fitting nicely into the hierarchy without overlap, etc., and listed in the parent article as a region. This is not the case here, nor with the two below. Texugo 04:22, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Retain all and improve Trasimeno. Neither Bracciano nor Bolsena are articles about lakes but about the areas around them. I don't see any overlap. I think what is relevant is how the area is perceived. In Reno they might say " let's go to Lake Tahoe". In Rome, people say "Let's go to Lahe Bracciano". For me the important thing is that, as individual cities, the towns around the two lakes don't really rate individual articles but as groups they come together nicely. Shep 06:43, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Lake Trasimeno

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

  • Merge and redirect Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Lake Bracciano

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

  • Merge and redirect Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep for all three lakes discussed above. I have just done a quick check. Lake Louise, Loch Lomond and Lake Garda are all on Wikitravel. I think they, and surely many others, establish a precedent.Shep 08:49, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep all three. None of these articles violate what WT:Bodies of water was designed to combat—they are not encyclopedia articles about lakes themselves, rather they are destination articles, with plenty of overnight options. Bracciano and Bolsena each group the villages ringing a lake into one valid "city" article, akin to how we use a city template for small, inhabited islands. There are thousands of such lake-resort/lakeside community destinations around the world, many of them much smaller than Tahoe, and the majority of them deserving a travel article (like Lake Placid). Trasimeno seems clearly a valid region article, and I'm not sure that it conflicts with the existing hierarchy in any way. And even if it did overlap other regions at the same level of the hierarchy, that is allowed, and is very often a sensible way of organizing travel content. The Chesapeake Bay and Navajo Nation articles clearly overlap all sorts of regions, but it would not be sensible to omit such well-known and coherent travel destinations from Wikitravel out of a desire to keep the geographical hierarchy more simple—a certain amount of complexity is necessary and IMO not a problem. --Peter Talk 14:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - but review the region.

I disagree with much of the reasoning above for keeping the three lake articles.

  1. If the the reason for the bodies of water guideline is that we don't want encyclopaedic articles about bodies of water, it would be extremely simple to just put that in the guideline. There are many people who contributed to the guideline, and trying to assess their reasoning rather than following the text is the wrong way to proceed. The text of the guideline is quite clear, and we should follow the guideline, or fix the guideline.
  2. I also don't agree that because there are other examples of a type of article, that we have established a precedent. There are lots of things that slip through the cracks for want of attention, and other articles which we just keep even though they are against policy (some just because they are good articles and useful to a traveller). I don't think that means that a precedent is stronger than a policy or guideline. We shouldn't let Wikitravel documentation descend into unwritten policies, precedents, and conventions. If we think an article is good enough to establish a precedent, we should change the policy or guideline. To do anything else means that new users who want to follow the guidelines, don't have a clue where to look, and discussions here and elsewhere become excessively complex pointing to other examples, rather than building better guidelines.
  3. I don't think the fact that we allow regions that don't fit into the regional hierarchy, means that we should assume we keep regions that don't. Sure, we allow regions that don't fit into the hierarchy, but there should be a strong presumption against them rising to any more than just disamb articles. We should make new regions that don't form part of the hierarchy redirect/disamb articles, unless there really is additional information significant to the traveller that can't be sensibly placed anywhere other than the region. I see bare and poorly developed regions are a significant problem on WT, and we shouldn't add to it by encouraging other full regional articles. In this particular case, isn't clear whether the articles are going to end up as regional articles, containing towns, or city template based articles in themselves.

That said, this article seems to me to describe a land region named after the lake, rather than the lake itself, and Shep's arguments that it is a common name for the land region seem convincing to me. However, we should be careful that this article doesn't end up just a bare region. If this is a real grouping for a number of smaller towns, perhaps the towns themselves could be redirected to this region, if they all have something in common, and are close together? Or perhaps we could rethink the regional hierarchy in this area? If it is a clear region that the towns belong to, perhaps it should be part of the hierarchy? --inas 20:26, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Ian, your rebuttal is borderline incomprehensible to me. 1) If the text of the guideline is quite clear, then why were we having this discussion (where I made it clear that I disagree with your reading of the policy, for that matter). Anyway, I've updated the policy in a way that will hopefully make more sense. 2) The examples I cited are hardly articles that slipped through the cracks, they are examples that should make it obvious that we should have destination guides named after lakes, provided (as the policy has always said), they are about the land destination surrounding the lake, rather than the water itself. 3) I have no idea why there should be a strong presumption against region articles just because they are not a part of our hierarchy, which exists for navigational purposes. If a region is a valid travel region, we travelers a disservice to arbitrarily refuse to write travel content about it. Moreover, bare and poorly developed articles are far more likely for regions created out of navigational convenience (like Northern X) than something coherent like a specific resort lake. --Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm not familiar enough with the Italian lakes in question to be able to comment on the specifics, but I just wanted to chime in my support for Peter's interpretation of the policy. If a lake is a sensible destination/region -- and the pattern of having small communities dotted around a lake surrounded by mountains is quite common -- then there's no reason why the lake should not be a destination/region. Jpatokal 01:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Agree much with Inas. For me the bodies of water policy reads that, if at all possible, we avoid having articles about them, instead preferring to redirect. Yes we know there are exceptions to the bodies of water guideline out there, but they all either have reasons to be exceptions, or they need to be re-examined. The ones already mentioned seem to have valid reasons:
  • Lake Placid is the name of the town, so is actually not an exception at all.
  • Loch Lomond is a hierarchically valid subregion article of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park
  • Lake Louise is very remote with no logical nearest town to direct to, yet is a popular destination with its own places to sleep.
  • Lake Garda is a very large lake which borders three provinces, has attractions around it, but no single community big enough to warrant an article, so no logical place to redirect or disambiguate. This is the treat-all-the-villages-as-one-city example that Peter was looking for.
Since even our geographical hierachy states that exceptions need to be made on a case by case basis let's look at the three at hand:
  • Lake Bolsena - Has two town articles (Montefiascone and Latera which is no further away but not mentioned in the current article). Has one town, Bolsena which could probably do with its own article, having a castle, a cathedral with an interesting story, a theater, and several dozen restaurants and places to sleep. Has one small village worth mentioning in the Get out section of nearby Montefiascone because it has a castle and provides access to a small island. I don't see any information that wouldn't fit nicely into another article, given a disambig page, so I don't see any reason to make this an exception from current body of water policy on the basis of anything other than possibly naming a subregion after this lake. On that point, the question as to whether this article should stand as a valid region article can be answered by asking "Can (and should) the province of Viterbo be subdivided into regions, and would this be a logical component of that subdivision without causing overlap?"
  • Lake Bracciano - Currently has no articles of cities around the lake, but Bracciano is a city of 15,500, well deserving of an article, and we can redirect there. We can put info about enjoying the lake in the new city article, with the much smaller Anguillara Sabazia and Trevignano Romano covered briefly in the Get out section. Again, I see no reason we can't follow the disambig and redirect guideline. If, as above, we decide that subdividing Viterbo is necessary, this could possibly make a logical region with no overlap, though I'm not sure it would contain anything at all besides the aforementioned city article.
  • Lake Trasimeno could very well be a valid region article at some point. However, right now Umbria is not subdivided into regions, so, as in cases where someone creates a lone district article for an otherwise undivided city, I think it needs to be nothing but a disambig page, at least until such time as someone justifies and proposes subdistricting. The current article contains nothing but links to cities anyway, and is essentially already the disambig page I would have it be, except that it has a region template.
To respond to Peter's position about overlap, I agree that a little overlap doesn't hurt sometimes, but our guidelines still encourage us to avoid it when possible. So far the few exceptions we have made have been on a very case-by-case basis, sometimes hotly contested, and only about very large and famous regions which cross multiple macro-regions or countries. Many of the exceptions we have made have resulted in what are basically glorified disambig pages with little extra information. I really think what you are proposing is a slippery slope. If we start making exceptions for any little ol' lake with a couple of villages on it, we undermine both the bodies of water policy and the geographical hierarchy guidelines, and we'll end up with hundreds of new lake articles that overlap, confuse breadcrumb navigation, contain little information that couldn't be included elsewhere, and invite further rule-stretching to include rivers, etc. I get the feeling that you essentially disagree with the bodies of water policy, which is your right and we can of course discuss in the appropriate place and possibly make some changes. But as Inas said, the current policy is pretty clear on avoiding such articles if at all possible. In the above cases, I think it is very easy to avoid. Texugo 00:29, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Lake Bolsena: I'm least sure of this one, but WP lists seven comuni on the shores of the lake, so it should be a fine region article. Lake Bracciano is small, as are the communities around it, which is why Shep recommended they be covered within one article. I haven't been there, so I'm happy to trust his judgment—and I certainly don't see a compelling reason not to (other than some arbitrary discrimination against articles with the word "lake" in the title?). Lake Trasimeno is a valid region article already, and is not suggested as a region in a subdivision of Umbria, nor should it be, as it would only be listed as an other destination on whatever parent region article. It's clearly a travel destination, and I'm baffled as to how this undermines the geographical hierarchy, confuses breadcrumb information, or otherwise creates any problems of overlap. It's a coherent travel destination, it can sustain a good travel article, and travelers heading there would be well served by an article for the lake region. --Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Wow! If I had known that writing for Wikitravel was going to lead to so much debate I'd have read a good book instead. Anyway, I am happy to go along with the consensus, if there is one.Shep 13:43, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

This is a debate we had to have - because the relationship between wikitravel and bodies of water has always been odd, and it is good to see the points of view come out. Please don't feel you have to wait on the sideline for a consensus, a new opinion I'm sure would be valued by all. Hopefully we can get a better guideline as a result. --inas 19:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I wrote the two lake articles thinking that it was a logical way to present the locations in the area. I'm trying to increase coverage of Lazio and as I noted above most places around the lakes do not really merit an article on their own. But I do think Wikitravel should avoid articles such as the present one on Lake Trasimeno, which is not much help to anyone, with no information and listings of cities that have no articles!Shep 01:06, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
This discussion is currently on hold because it sparked a larger discussion here. Please chime in there. Texugo 01:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

October 2009

Gelato

Peach Bottom

Village under 4500 people. Practically everything mentioned here is in Lancaster, 30 minutes away. It is explicitly stated that there is no place to stay, no place to eat, nothing to see, nothing to do, and there is only one very vague Buy suggestion that is basically universal to the region.

  • Delete - Texugo 21:38, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge then delete If there is anything that is not already on the Lancaster page, then I'd suggest merging first. If not, just delete it. It has a nice name, though. ChubbyWimbus 23:50, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & redirect. The name is nice; someone might search for it. Pashley 13:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect. Agree with Pashley Pbsouthwood 15:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Remote destinations

Basically an advertisement for www.trulyremote.com (which I'll proceed remove the link to per our external links policy), I think it's aptly covered in our excellent Off the Beaten Path section. Delete or redirect there, don't really care. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:37, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete I was about to nominate it myself, but you beat me to it! ChubbyWimbus 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete and don't even bother with the redirect. - Dguillaime 22:48, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Seems like a useful search term. LtPowers 11:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedied. User deleted the content for the second time, and reviving it seemed sorta pointless, we can allways make a new redirect if anyone else sees that as a good idea. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
    • ... you speedied something I'd explicitly recommended keeping? Nice. LtPowers 22:23, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Edit warring over a guide with content it seems like noone, including the author, wanted to keep seemed a bit obsessive to me. And if there is a consensus for a redirect, well, the only changed is whether the link is red or black when it's created. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
The speedy deletion rules are pretty clear, I'd thought. Why did you even bring it up here if you were just going to speedy it anyway? LtPowers 09:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Exactly because it was a likely search term, but I didn't know it would prompt an edit war when I nominated it, these guys generally don't tend to return once they've gotten their links sneaked in. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:49, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Sertmann, while I agree with the end result, according to Deletion policy, you were out of line there — no speedies if there's any doubt. However, this is actually a bit of a grey area, so I've raised a discussion on Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy#Speedying VFD-listed articles to clarify the wording. Jpatokal 10:29, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Okay, okay, okay.... point taken, jesus. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:19, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I hate the redirect. Remote means something entirely different to off the beaten path to me. --inas 08:09, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I would not go as far as "entirely different"; there is considerable overlap. However, "remote" and "off the beaten path" are certainly not synonyms. Pitcairn or Hovd might fit both categories, but Kilkenny and Penticton are by no means remote. Pashley 09:06, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Kleena kleene

All of the content is a copyright violation from Explore magazine. Either delete or maybe empty and re-direct to Williams Lake. --Burmesedays 22:07, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Useless and copy-vio jan 06:48, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete, since the capitalisation is wrong as well. Pashley 07:36, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete for the above reasons. Texugo 12:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Sun Koshi

Empty river article. I hate to vfd another body of water while there is a discussion going on, but this one seems rather clear cut. All previous content was copyvio, now deleted.

  • Delete - Texugo 12:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Saddhu in Ramechhap.jpg

Image:Tamang Girl at Khandadevi.jpg

Image:Lama Women at Dhogme.jpg

I rather like these three pictures, but they violate our policy about people in photos.

  • Delete all - Texugo 13:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Not sure What about the part that states "Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform." These pictures are from the Indigenous Peoples Trail article, which seems to be showcasing various cultures and people of the area... Would these pictures then be examples of showcasing the various ethnic groups? ChubbyWimbus 14:20, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, I re-read that to make sure too, but they definitely aren't showcasing sports, activities or crowds, and I don't really think you could say they are showcasing a costume or uniform either. It doesn't list an exception for showcasing the ethnicity itself either. With almost the same argument, I could upload a picture of a typical Japanese salaryman passed out on the train or a Cearense fisherman with his jangada, but my understanding is that those aren't allowed because there is no model release. Texugo 02:37, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
I guess I was thinking about the "costume" part of it, particularly with the photo of the woman. On that note, though, if we were to agree that it is indeed showcasing her ethnic costume, would need a release from her? If these photos undoubtedly need releases, then of course, we can do nothing but delete them. ChubbyWimbus 03:33, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
Texugo is right in terms of the policy linked above. The law varies from country to country, and there are some exceptions which also vary. Basically, though, any picture of a person needs a model release. The exceptions cover things like a scene where the people are incidental (photo of Champs Elysee), or some event like a football game or a wedding where you may need permission or even an invitation, but not individual releases. I very much doubt these photos would qualify for the legal exceptions anywhere, and they certainly don't under our policy. Pashley 08:10, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

YMCA YELAGIRI

  • Delete. Does not meet the requirements in Wikitravel:What is an article?. The user who has re-created this article doesn't seem to be reading his talk page so hopefully this vfd nomination will get his attention. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Not an article and should rather be a listing. jan 13:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep.A travel guide for people in South India. —The preceding comment was added by 122.164.174.61 (talkcontribs) .
  • Delete Though, our dear Mr David seems to be an awfully clueless personality that can't really take a hint, so I'm not so sure we'll get his attention. The fact that the YMCA is already listed in Yelagiri by this user himself, the blatant disregard of netiquette, capital letter pimping and whatnot should land this guy a blacklisting soon. —The preceding comment was added by Sertmann (talkcontribs) .
  • An obvious delete, I'd say. Is there anything in it worth moving to Yelagiri first? Or should it just go? Pashley 07:38, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect to Yelagiri. Deleting the page will merely leave a space to recreate it. Merging/redirecting will stop the page being created again and it can be protected, if need be. - Huttite 05:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Pakistani students coming to Finland

Not sure any explanation is required. Speedy I think. Apart from anything else it has been set up as a disambiguation page. --Burmesedays 21:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

I do not think it can be speedied. There is at least one valid travel topic that is very close to this. Perhaps "Foreign students in Europe" or "Studying abroad"? I'm not sure of the exact right title or scope. but studying — especially students from "developing" countries going to "developed" countries — is a huge reason for travel. Better to re-name and generalise the article than to scrap it. Some of the advice here, like get a driver's license at home because converting it is cheaper than getting one in the host country, can be useful and is not obvious. Pashley 22:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd say it should be changed to Studying in Finland. "Foreign students in Europe" is likely to be too broad a topic, and the current title is too narrow. I certainly don't think there are enough differences to warrant having a separate topic each for Turkish students coming to Finland, Jordanian students coming to Finland, Iranian students coming to..., and every other country... Texugo 22:39, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, but then do we get Studying in Finland, Studying in Germany, Studying in France, Studying in the UK, ... ? Pashley 23:04, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Studying in Finland makes sense. Anything more specific than that then a can of worms is well and truly opened with thousands of permutations. Also, I must say that it had not occurred to me that students formally moving overseas to study would look to Wikitravel for logistical advice; hence my suggestion for speedy. There are surely far more appropriate places? Do we really think that students will use Wikitravel as a source of such advice?--Burmesedays 23:06, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Business travel and studying overseas (all those Learn sections) are well-established reasons to use Wikitravel. I agree that the original article is kinda ridiculous, but wouldn't oppose a Studying in Finland article. Jpatokal 00:52, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
We might, Pashley, if there is information to impart that would not fit comfortably into a Learn section. LtPowers 09:01, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
Rewrite is needed to fit the Studying in Finland proposal. The current article is not really helpful and more a list of commonplaces. I suggest we redirect first and then see how the article develops. jan 09:15, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd prefer a single Studying abroad article with the suggestion of looking at the "Learn" section of destination articles. We don't have "Working in Finland", Working in Thailand", etc., just Working abroad and the Work sections of destinations. I think the same applies here. Pashley 01:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
How about starting things off with a Studying abroad article, and letting it expand from there? The original looks like it may have been written by a Pakistani student now in Finland, who found these things out the hard way and wants to help. This is good in principle, unless Wikitravel is going to limit the scope of its content to exclude this sort of information. If there is not an issue of space, why not provide this service? Those hints look moderately useful to someone with no travelling experience planning to go to a very different climate and culture. The format will probably have to differ from the norm to make sense, but as a possibility, consider a main article Studying abroad, with sub-articles for region specific hints like Studying abroad/Pakistani in Finland if/when there is enough content to justify the split. Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
I like the idea of starting off with a Study Abroad article and splitting as it expands. I think that's much more reasonable than beginning with a random Studying abroad in Finland article that will be likely to fall into obscurity, since there really isn't any place right now to link to it. It would just be a floater. Having an established Study Abroad page would provide a base for creating more specific articles relating to study abroad. If the information here is decent information, perhaps it could be moved to the the Talk Page of the study abroad article once it is created. That way we wouldn't lose content. ChubbyWimbus 02:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Only problem is, I'm not sure there's all that much to say about studying abroad in general? The Pakistani guy studying in Finland is going to be facing a very different set of hurdles from the Finnish guy studying in Japan... Jpatokal 06:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Pigfarts

  • Speedy delete I wish I already had the magic buttons but this spam is at least a bit funny. jan 11:29, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

List Of Airlines Which Offer One Way Fares

Some discussion is already on its talk page, with the key points being "unmaintainable" and "better suited for Tips for flying".

  • Delete. - Dguillaime 13:48, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Defintely Delete One way flights are today commonplace (either fictive return flights or offered straight away).jan 14:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge into Tips for flying, and give it a better name. One way flights are unfortunately by no means commonplace, and a fictive return is NOT half the price of a return, as clearly stated in the understand section.--Swissbelg 16:14, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. It is an encyclopaedic list. Its potential value to a traveller is minimal, and any information on the cheapest or best way to fly to a destination is best placed in the destination guide. --inas 17:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
does that means all encyclopedic lists should be removed from wikitravel? i have a few suggestions there...
Its potential value to a traveller is minimal
i think that is a very personal assumption, if someone (yes, like me) does not like planning where to go next on a world trip, this is probably one of the most essential things... i would have saved weeks of searching if i would have found such a list, that's why i wanted to share the little i found out so far.
...and any information on the cheapest or best way to fly to a destination is best placed in the destination guide...
its not about a destination, it's about an airlines policy on one way flights. pleas read the related article before voting ;-P --Swissbelg 20:28, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
IMO, there is very little value in encyclopaedic lists on wikitravel. I know there are lots of them on wikipedia, but this site, right now doesn't have the resources to maintain them, they fall out of date quickly, or more likely never even reach a stage of accuracy. I'm not convinced even the airlines there now are correct. There are some exceptions, like the UNESCO lists, but this one has considerably narrower appeal.
I would be really surprised if this sort of list helped anyone with their travel planning. Just about every airline will enable you to fly one way to a destination. Airlines on the list aren't necessarily any cheaper, or in any other way better to those off it. You still need to check with the airlines.
I understand it is about the airlines policy. But at the end of the day, it is about the best way to get to a destination, and the person travelling to that destination is going to be reading that destination guide for tips on the best way to get there. I would think that in the New Zealand article, it is well worth pointing out that all airlines flying between Australia and New Zealand sell fares on a one way basis, so you shouldn't lock yourself into one airline for the forward and return trip to get the best price. I think that info may already be there..
Essentially, I think this list has is high maintenance, for low traveller value. --inas 00:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Beijing/Tiananmen

Already covered at Beijing/Dongcheng.

  • Redirect - Texugo 03:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
    • Redirected. Jpatokal 10:00, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Anyone up for a similar fix for Beijing/Ditan‎? - Dguillaime 14:33, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

San Antonio/Downtown

Created with a lot of nonsense letters. San Antonio is otherwise un-districtified.

  • Delete - Texugo 04:06, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to San Antonio, so that when the place is districtified the article will already exist. - Huttite 06:07, 3 November 2009 (EST)
    • Now Redirected - Discussion added to talk page. - Huttite 06:59, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Saratoga County

Looking at the New York regional structure, a county article is not really appropriate. There is already a reasonably developed Saratoga Springs article so if anything, maybe a redirect there? --Burmesedays 13:08, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Keep. The regions of New York are not, themselves, well-divided into subregions. Counties seem to be the default option until someone comes up with a better organization. LtPowers 13:59, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Hudson Valley. It's a problematic county, as it is split across two parent regions. But more importantly it's not yet necessary, nothing links there, nor does it have any content. --Peter Talk 15:11, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
    • As you say, it's split across two parent regions, so why redirect to one? LtPowers 16:21, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
There's almost nothing northwest of the park border (to this we owe the beautiful views from Saratoga Springs!). I'm pretty sure miniscule Corinth is all there is—everything else is on the Hudson Valley side. --Peter Talk 17:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep and disambiguate or redirect - I am not sure why there is such an aversion to creating US counties but to me it would seem reasonable to have county pages, simply because Wikipedia has them and there is a risk that someone will link to Wikitravel and expect to find a county organised the same way. It could be a disambiguation page at this stage that points to all the places you want to redirect it to. - Huttite 06:22, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Kattoor kerala

No useful info, wrong title format, wrong capitalisation. We might eventually want an article for Kattoor, which WP lists [1]. Pashley 00:40, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • I think the solution is obvious. Move to Kattoor, add an outline template, wikilink to the Wikipedia article and keep it. - Huttite 06:28, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Tollesbury

Seems like a load of bull to me --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:38, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • a point or two for humour (vibrant night life in Tollesbury is an amusing concept). --Burmesedays 11:48, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Blank and Outline. LtPowers 17:33, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep and add a destination template. It is probably worth a mention as a destination in Essex, so that it is no longer an orphan page. Then again the vibrant nightlife reminds me of Peter Sellers Belham with its beautigul flashing lights - green - orange - red and back to green again! - Huttite 06:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)

False Bay

Body of water, not a destination. One does not go to "False Bay" as such, one goes to the destinations on its coast specified by name. Most are part of Cape Town, but some are not, making a redirect inappropriate.

Scratch that, should have looked at it first. It's a valid region article, and is about the cities in the bay area, not the water itself. --Peter Talk 02:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Atlantic Seaboard

Not a useful name. So many places have an Atlantic seaboard that disambiguation is not an option

  • Merge and delete Pbsouthwood 02:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep — ditto what I said above. If there is a naming conflict with other articles, then it can be disambiguated. Or if you have a better name in mind, we can use that. But otherwise this seems a perfectly valid region article and subdivision of Cape Peninsula. --Peter Talk 02:31, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
So, is this one just going to have links to countries in South America, North America, Africa, and Europe that touch the Atlantic Ocean? ChubbyWimbus 02:37, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
There's no need to disambiguate yet, as there is only one article. And no, that would be a pointless disambig—it would only need to disambiguate region articles that actually bear that name. Mid-Atlantic is a similar case. --Peter Talk 02:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Seattle/Madison Park

Two-line description of an attraction, not linked from anywhere. I suppose it could be redirected, but don't know to where, or if that is worthwhile. Pashley 23:34, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

There's yet another Seattle district article floating around out there? Nothing links to it (hence minimal redirect value) and it contains no useful content, so I would suggest deleting it. The area is already covered by Seattle/Capitol Hill-Central District. - Dguillaime 23:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't think people do searches with "/", so it could probably just be deleted. ChubbyWimbus 00:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
What about Seattle/Laurelhurst, Seattle/Georgetown, Seattle/Ravenna, maybe others? Pashley
That's a good point by Chubby. Personally it would never occur to me to search for any destination with a / in the search string .--Burmesedays 07:11, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Laurelhurst and Ravenna are both going to be merged into larger districts, uh, real soon now. (All those North Seattle articles are such a mess...). Georgetown must have gotten overlooked -- its content has already been transferred, so I'll redirect it now. - Dguillaime 15:25, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Redirect per Wikitravel:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting to Seattle, if not to a district. The point of that clause in the deletion policy is to save us the trouble and time of debating whether to delete or redirect for each individual case, so lets stick to it. --Peter Talk 14:18, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Category:위키트래벌

Now that ko: has been launched, it's time to delete the articles in Category:위키트래벌. Deletions can be done speedily after it's confirmed that they've been transwikied (= check if English original has a link to ko and whether the article is there). Jpatokal 11:08, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Isn't this a bit premature? It might be better to explain what to do about these article as part of the expedition, rather than simply VfD the the whole category here. Perhaps VfD later once we are certain the articles have all been created in ko:. - Huttite 06:50, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Destination_Resorts_Hawaii

  • Please speedy delete. It's a hotel page and the user tried to delete the vfd. jan 16:14, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Www.bromotrail.com

Speedy please. It's a Javanese tour operator and owner of the Cemera Indah hotel. --Burmesedays 12:04, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Phrasebook International

Getting rid of this has been discussed before; see its discussion page and User_talk:DenisYurkin#Some_questions. I thought it time to broaden the discussion.

It seems to me the basic premise that there's some sort of "international language" (words or phrases likely to be understood more-or-less anywhere) to be documented is just wrong. Given that, I do not think the article is salvageable, or at least not under this title. On the other hand, could we move it to Tips for coping with language problems or some such? Certainly this is a problem many travelers face; that's a valid travel topic and parts of this article might be a good start. Pashley 08:36, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

What sections/aspects could an article like Tips for coping with language problems include? --DenisYurkin 05:29, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
I mean that if there's any idea of what this article better become a part of, why vfding it at all--why not start with an outline of such a more-general article? I absolutely admit that it's impossible to have a complete phrasebook (complete in the sense we have other phrasebooks here)--and this article was never considered for that goal--. Yes, it's a helper in communicating when you can't find a common language--so if it's only a matter of renaming, let's just do it. --DenisYurkin 16:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
I like this idea better. An international phrasebook is too limiting, I think, because there is no such thing as an international language (although people like to say that English is the international language). Tips for getting through language issues seems easier to add to, as well as to forgive things that apply to many places but not everywhere. ChubbyWimbus 02:16, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete though Jani's idea of a sign language phrasebooks seems good if someone can come up with an idea on how to make it work, I learned booking whole railway tickets in China (before mass tourism arrived) using nothing but sign language and a LP guide (city names in Chinese) - See the talk page —The preceding comment was added by Sertmann (talkcontribs) .


  • Keep. I think it's useful to have a list of English words that are likely to be widely understood. LtPowers 14:33, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Bekal Fort

An attraction rather than a destination. Text appears to be a copyright violation from [3] or several other places with the same phrasing. Pashley 23:07, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

DFDS_Seaways

Advertising Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:34, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy deleted as such. - Dguillaime 12:44, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm in awe, the proud old dinosaur spamming a Web 2.0 site, remarkable. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 12:57, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Pierreabbat/keyboard_layouts

Looks like poorly executed and incoherent spam. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:37, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Re-enactment

  • Delete or Redirect - Insufficient information to understand the purpose of this page. While I can understand historical re-enactments might be a tourist attraction, the information should appear on the relevant destination guide article. I can also understand that a travel topic linking those destinations might make interesting reading, but I don't think this is the right name for it. If someone can think of a better name and/or come up with a purpose statement for the article then I would be happy for it to stay. - 07:45, 31 October 2009 (EDT) —The preceding comment was added by Huttite (talkcontribs) .


  • Delete is fine; the subject could make a perfectly good travel topic, but this isn't a very coherent start. LtPowers 10:27, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete The name is quite bad. I think it would need to at least specify a type of reenactment, like Civil War or something, in order to make it a sensible travel topic. ChubbyWimbus 14:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Agree with ChubbyWimbus. There may be a case for Historical re-enactments as a travel topic, but the current article name is unsuitable and the content trivial and not worth the effort of renaming. The author does not seem to be interested in developing the article or defending it. Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:28, 1 November 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Stub travel topic, apparently uncurated. --Peter Talk 22:51, 1 November 2009 (EST)

November 2009

Penrioch

  • Delete. I'm doing some work to try and bring Arran into shape, and came across this article. This is a tiny hamlet, with no accomodation, shops, atttractions or anything else except some lovely scenery. I think the "Motorcycle Musem" mentioned is someone's wee joke: The 'motorcycle museum', with only one motorcycle, which is British, on display. You look at it through the window as you stand outside. Free. I'm not even sure that Pirnmill really needs a page of its own either. Tarr3n 06:00, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. Does not meet the bar for a Wikitravel article. Like the joke about the motorbike museum :). Good work on Isle of Arran by the way. --Burmesedays 06:44, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to Arran? Pashley 07:41, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Unlikely search term, but I guess a redirect wouldn't do any harm. Now you mention it, it's probably worth setting up redirect pages for the larger villages on Arran, which users might search for. Tarr3n 09:28, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Always Redirect valid place names. Always. LtPowers 10:04, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Weak Keep or Redirect. No harm in having a article saying there is little to see or do there. Probably more useful to a potential traveller than a redirect to another destination article that contains no information on the destination. Of course if there was destination information in the target of the redirect, then definitely redirect to where the info is. --inas 17:37, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect - No place to sleep but might be a search term. Texugo 19:19, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • If the redirected city contains information about Penrioch, then redirect. If it does not, then we are not doing anyone a favor by redirecting them to a city where the destination they seek is not mentioned. ChubbyWimbus 00:38, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect - It is a place that might be an attraction in the regional destination article, so the information about the scenery can be mentioned under See on the regional destination article page that is the redirection target. - Huttite 06:12, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Template:Welcome_Box

Inappropriate content Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:42, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 04:59, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Kishine koen

Says its a station name in Yokohama. —The preceding comment was added by 130.49.148.119 (talkcontribs) .


So redirect it to Yokohama. LtPowers 11:52, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Merged and redirected before I even saw this. Jpatokal 21:25, 3 November 2009 (EST)

News articles and category in Korean

These are useless for en: since they are written in Korean. And they are also useless for ko: since ko: has no travel news section now. That language version is still translateing policies and guidelines.

  • Delete. -- Tatata7 04:50, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages

other sites